A Good Day For Children

What could possibly cause the White House, the Lamestream Media, Progressive bloggers and talking heads, and even conservative commentators Steven Hayes and Charles Krauthammer to agree? Why, the NRA, of course!

“Most Americans agree that a president’s children should not be used as pawns in a political fight,’ Carney said just prior to a press conference in which the president unveiled his plan to combat gun violence. ‘But to go so far as to make the safety of the president’s children the subject of an attack ad is repugnant and cowardly.”

It might be worthwhile to note that in that press conference, Mr. Obama used four children–of appropriately diverse gender and race, of course–as props.

And on the January 16th edition of Brett Bair’s All Star Panel, progressive Juan Williams–and this is no surprise–was less than complimentary about the ad. According to the Free Republic, he called it “a mistake, vile and repugnant.” But what might be surprising to some is that conservatives Steve Hayes and Charles Krauthammer entirely agreed with Williams.

“Speaking in a press conference, the outspoken governor decried the move as ‘reprehensible’ and argued the group lost some credibility by making the ad.

‘And I think for any of us who are public figures, you see that kind of ad and you cringe. You cringe because it’s just not appropriate in my view to do that,’ he said. ‘They’ve got real issues to debate on this topic. Get to the real issues. Don’t be dragging peoples’ children into this. It’s wrong.”

Reprehensible? An unfair attack on Mr. Obama’s children? Lost credibility? NRA President David Keene was succinct:

“Defending the ad, NRA President David Keene said Wednesday on CNN that the ad wasn’t specifically about Obama’s two daughters, but about all children who attend schools with private security.

‘What we’re talking about is folks who have protection for their own children…and then pooh-pooh the idea that the average American’s children shouldn’t have the same sort of protection,’ he said on ‘The Situation Room.”

Just so. The ad clearly is not an attack on Mr. Obama’s children, but on his obvious hypocrisy. No rational person would argue that the children of the POTUS not only deserve but need security. The ad does not so much as suggest they shouldn’t have armed security; it does make clear every child deserves it. The ad also shows the images of a number of other famous politicians, making the point that their children–as well as the Obama children–attend schools with substantial armed security, yet those same Democrats actively deny it to the children of “common” Americans.

One might observe, as I did in a recent articlethat at least one of Mr. Obama’s anti-gun proposals might seem to be supportive of the NRA’s call for armed security in schools, but speaking for himself and Mr. Obama, Vice President Joe “the Sheriff” Biden, speaking after Mr. Obama’s release of those measures, disabuses us of that silly notion:

“Responding to calls from the National Rifle Association to have armed guards at schools, Biden says, ‘We don’t want rent-a-cops in schools armed.”

It should be remembered that Mr. and Mrs. Obama have frequently used their children as political props, just as he did the four children standing behind him–later the on-camera recipients of presidential hugs–during his anti-gun press conference. And as if this was not sufficiently exploitative, the White House released videos of those children reading their anti-gun letters. Some have had the temerity to suggest their letters might have been encouraged rather than the spontaneous urgings of 8 and 10 year-old consciences. Call Louis Renault, because I’m shocked, shocked!

The NRA seeks to shame Mr. Obama into supporting armed security in the schools of all children and does not trot children who have no understanding of the issues before the cameras. Mr. Obama uses children as props and as pre-programmed mouthpieces in multiple media venues to trick adults into depriving them of that protection. Who is being exploitative, vile, cowardly and reprehensible?

But more, this manufactured controversy shows just how out of touch even mainstream beltway conservatives can be. People the NRA obviously intended to reach have responded positively to the ad, and to the NRA. To them, the ad was not only reasonable, but very much to the point. Joe and Josephine God and gun clinger in flyover country saw in the ad what I saw: the exposure of a man whose lies and hypocrisy on this, and a great many issues, has become legendary. They know the difference between exploiting children and calling attention to those who actually do exploit them, even if some conservatives do not.

What’s that? You want proof? In the last month, the NRA has gained 250,000 new members, bringing total membership to 4.25 million, a new record. Those membership gains show no sign of abating.

“According the latest Gallup survey, which was taken after the Sandy Hook murders and Wayne LaPierre’s press conference, the NRA, despite being demonized 24/7 in the media, enjoys a favorability rating of 54%. Today, according to Gallup, Obama’s approval rating sits at 53%.

Moreover, only 38% of those polled have an unfavorable opinion of the NRA. Obama’s disapproval rating sits three points higher at 41%.

Part of the reason the White House, Democrats, and the corrupt media are losing their battle to marginalize and destroy the political power of the NRA might have to do with the fact that a new CNN poll released today shows that an overwhelming majority of the America people agree with the NRA’s proposal to put armed guards in schools, 54% to 45%.”

Despite fevered attempts by the White House, the Lamestream Media, the Congress, and with able assists by some notable–perhaps now notorious–conservatives, hysterical attempts to demonize the NRA and law-abiding gun owners are failing miserably. For the moment, and in this single area, it would seem that Mr. Obama’s routine attempts to cover his hypocrisy and to foist outrageous lies on the public are failing. Today, at least, is a good day for liberty–and children.

UPDATE, 1725, 11-19-13: It seems even The Washington Post recognizes a reality Beltway denizens–including some conservatives–have a hard time even imagining. In an article titled “How the NRA is Winning,” it notes:

“There’s little doubt that the inside-the-Beltway crowd and those who have been longtime advocates of more gun control laws are outraged by the brash style that the NRA has adopted following the shootings in Newtown, Conn.

But, there’s also plenty of evidence to suggest that the NRA is regarded entirely differently in the country at large.”

Nice to see that at least this Lamestream Media outlet is catching up to this scruffy little blog. By all means, read the whole article.

Share this:

Like this:

Related

Post navigation

30 thoughts on “A Good Day For Children”

Excellent article! I think it is interesting that Biden uses the term “rent-a-cop”. How classy of our VP. I certainly do not think that security firms do a good job of training their employees, however, it is such rude language coming from someone in his position.
As long as we have citizens who have untreated mental illnesses we will have these tragic situations. Why is it SO difficult for the population of this country to understand that guns do not kill, only people kill. The lack of such basic understanding is truly frightening!

“Why is it SO difficult for the population of this country to understand that guns do not kill, only people kill” — so you are in favor of legalizing ALL illicit substances, then? Drugs don’t kill people, the people taking them do.

No, actually I kind of like the system we have now. Clearly by making all “illicit substances” illegal we have made an impact in stopping the use. We support a huge bureaucracy (DEA, etc.) that costs the taxpayer billions each year, the federal government shoves millions of dollars to States to purchase military type equipment so we have ‘bearcat’ vehicles in residential neighborhoods serving ‘SEARCH Warrants”, we have created a wide spread black-market for prescription drugs, our National Parks are being used to grow marijuana and ‘illicit ‘ drugs are far more available and cheaper than they were prior to ‘the war on drugs’ by the feds. The cost in human lives – immeasurable. We now have far more people using ‘drugs’ than in 1970 when the ‘war’ began. The War on Drugs, “Impressive, most impressive!”

Our society has done such a magnificent job of taking the blame off of the person, that we now feel comfortable blaming inanimate objects for our behaviors. So, yes, drugs aren’t to blame at all. They have no ability to get up on their own and enter a person’s bloodstream without the actions of a human. Does this mean we should have no laws governing the actions of humans? Of course not. That would create chaos and anarchy. But, we should take a serious look at redefining our idea of a civilized society and the laws we try to enforce to that end. Punishing self-injurious behavior or victimless crime has made, and will continue to make, absolutely no sense. Murder, whether done with a gun, knife, or spoon is infringing on another’s individual rights and freedom, so it, rightfully, should be punished.

Through the cost of their kid’s tuition, aren’t thay -paying- for said security?

I am gonna draw a parallel, here, maybe it will strike a cord, maybe it won’t.
Usually, when one group of people (lets say Group “A”) ask for something they are not directly paying for, the answer from another group of people (Group B) is “if you can afford it, but not on my dime”. If you don’t like your kids attending a school where there is not armed security, find a school that has armed security. So, then the goal posts get moved a little bit. Group A states its unreasonable to demand such hassle over something so simple that should be provided everywhere; it serves a common good. So Group B follows up with “you aren’t entitled to that, its an entitlement mentality, and it costs the ‘rest’ of us money.”

Credit to the NRA, they framed their argument in this instance with what appeals to their base, that being that Obama is arrogant, and thinks his kids are more important than yours. Well, from what I can understand of parenting, yeah, he does. My kids ARE more important than yours, and I fully expect you to say the same about yours with regards to importance over mine. Yes, his kids attend a school with armed guards. If something should happen to them, people now have political leverage over arguably the most powerful person in the free world. When framed in THAT sort of context, now armed guards where his kids are at just makes sense.

Anyhoo, with regards to my parallel, this is something that indeed is offered to those that can afford it, and being demanded by everyone else who in short, doesn’t want to pay for it, or can’t afford it in general. I find it incredibly amusing (at least me, personally) that when it comes to something like healthcare, the same argument is used, this time just by the opposite group, even though healthcare vs armed security in schools has the MOST disparate population of effected people I have yet to see for use of public funds.

Good points. However, what we’re dealing with, first, are people who want legislation to absolutely prevent anyone–armed guard or citizen–from carrying firearms on school grounds, and in so doing, they deny protection to all children, not only their own. While there is nothing inherently wrong with the NRA’s suggestion of an armed police officer in every school, it is simply too costly. The best solution remains allowing teachers with concealed carry permits to carry weapons in schools. It costs the public little or nothing and potentially provides far more complete coverage at no cost when compared with the cost of the NRA’s suggestion.

Mike,
Would you consider extra training, more than required for a concealed carry permit, for those teachers or administrators? I suggest this because it might be enough to tip the scales to the positive. Also, how would the schools handle a situation in which no teacher or administrator has or wants a concealed carry permit?

Welcome back! Good questions. In general, the only extra skills a teacher would need are precisely those required of all concealed carry permit holders: knowledge of state law regarding the use of deadly force and the demonstrated ability to hit what they shoot at. These are the minimum requirements for most states. Some argue that teachers would of necessity be essentially fully trained police officers and that they should focus only on teaching, but this is silly. If a teacher never needs to use their handgun–and this would be the case for the overwhelming majority–their daily job requirements remain exactly the same for the remainder of their career. If they do have to use it, for a few minutes in a career, they will have to focus on stopping a deadly threat likely no different in most respects than if they confronted it on the street or in their homes. Americans do this as often as 2.5 millions times per year with great success.

One of the other advantages of teachers carrying concealed is that if a school district publicizes the fact that they allow–even encourage–concealed carry but does not reveal who is carrying or where, even schools with no one carrying a concealed weapon benefit from the deterrent effect as every potential shooter will have to assume he will be met with a hail of bullets. We really can’t demand that people who don’t want to carry a handgun carry. Practically and morally, that’s a really bad idea, but again, the deterrent effect is real and powerful.

As for extra training, it would surely be worthwhile to offer not only regular shooting refresher courses, but regular law and tactical refreshers. These would not need to be week long affairs, but the occasional half day or day long class which would surely be far more interesting and informative than the usual pablum teachers must endure in in-service training. My concern is that anti-gun types would demand onerous and unnecessary training and restrictive rules as a means of discouraging what they claim to be training for.

Even in casual discussions in my own school, its clear there is considerable interest in the concept and I’ve no doubt a substantial number of teachers would be willing to carry.

If you look at the Constitution and why it was set up the way it was, you’ll see why the parallel you provided fails. The rights delineated in the Constitution do not require anything from anyone else, which means no liberty is being infringed. Your first Amendment right is yours and no one has to do anything for you to have it. The same is true of the second Amendment. If you want to own a gun, you may and no one needs to do anything for you to have that right. Healthcare is a different story. It requires, by its very nature, the time and resources of other individuals, “entitling” you to a piece of their life, which is an infringement on their liberty.

As for the NRA’s argument, Mike addressed, in a previous article he wrote, why this is not a completely solid idea and why his idea of allowing teachers to exercise their second Amendment right makes the most sense, if we are to make any changes. Personally, I see the whole argument on either side a big waste of time, if the goal is to save children’s lives, since children being killed while in school is still a statistically insignificant number. If the goal is, however, to not infringe on the Constitution, we would not have implemented “gun-free zones” in the first place. The knee-jerk reaction to give up liberty for some sense of safety or security has always been a problem we continually have to confront. Hopefully, cooler and wiser heads will prevail.

Just so. And I agree that the number of children lost in school shootings, and those who will be lost in future shootings, will be very small. However, considering the fact that no one’s rights will be infringed by concealed carry by teachers, and that concealed carry has the probability of stopping school shooters, thereby actually saving lives that would otherwise be lost, what’s the argument against it? The odds are that a given parent’s children will always be safe in school and that being killed by a school shooter will always happen only to other people, but there is also no reason why a given parent’s children can’t be “other people.”

“The same is true of the second Amendment. If you want to own a gun, you may and no one needs to do anything for you to have that right. Healthcare is a different story. It requires, by its very nature, the time and resources of other individuals, “entitling” you to a piece of their life, which is an infringement on their liberty.” — First amendment, I get the logic you are shooting for. Second amendment not so much, some one has to make the arms for you to hold them, which would could be construed as taking their time and resources. If healthcare is available to everyone subsidized by tax payers, that could be construed as a “right” thought not specifically enumerated. While this a very large simplification of my premise, I can sum it up by saying I have the right to legal counsel, which gets appointed if I can’t afford it. The same is not explicitly true of a doctor. How is one okay and the other not?

“If the goal is, however, to not infringe on the Constitution, we would not have implemented “gun-free zones” in the first place.” — I am not confident I would like the friends and relatives of soon to be convicted felons packing in the court room, Justin.

The second Amendment doesn’t require the time of another person. You have the right to bear arms. The manner in which those arms come into existence is not required to be performed by any individual outside of the person that wants to bear them. You’re confusing the marketplace with Constitutional rights, which is something many politicians have trouble with, too.

The right to healthcare does require the time and resources of another person, as the law, very lengthily, states. This is why it flies in the face of the Constitution.

The right to counsel is so designated, because the government is exercising an extraordinary ability to deny liberty to an individual who has broken the law. Now, you’re confusing criminal law with the marketplace.

I am confident it is not the ban on the public bringing in firearms in courtrooms that is deterring would-be criminals from “packing.” It is the law enforcement element that is “packing” and the consequences that would arise from that behavior. We can glean this from nearly every mass shooting, as nearly every one has been in a “gun-free zone.”

“The right to counsel is so designated, because the government is exercising an extraordinary ability to deny liberty to an individual who has broken the law. Now, you’re confusing criminal law with the marketplace.” — ::spit take:: Innocent until proven guilty? Either way, right to counsel is designated, right to doctor isn’t. You aren’t satisfying the imbalance by your statement. I could just as easily say the government is exercising and extraordinary ability in which to ensure the right to life (which, if I remember correct is right next to libery) is maintained.

“I am confident it is not the ban on the public bringing in firearms in courtrooms that is deterring would-be criminals from “packing.” It is the law enforcement element that is “packing” and the consequences that would arise from that behavior.” — which is true of any law ever, its the punishment and consequences that give a law teeth. Backwards Logic, man. Its like stating there is a law against assault, but assaults happen, so do away with the law, its not doing any good.

The thing you are missing is that the “right to life” is not guaranteed by the government. As, the Declaration of Independence says, it is unalienable. It existed prior to the American government system.

The “right to counsel” clause is different from a perceived right to health care, because it is there to protect one from government persecution. The right exists in that context. You do not have that right in civil litigation, for instance. Another way to say it is that the government is intending on taking away your liberty or even your life, so there is an appropriate protection in place. The government, however, didn’t give you cancer or Alzheimer’s, so there is no right to treatment through the government. You cannot compel any particular person to provide a goods or service that you want, until now.

As for the courtroom scenario, I wasn’t speaking of consequences of breaking the law, I was speaking of the consequences of getting into a shootout with law enforcement, i.e. death. If a courtroom were a true “gun-free zone,” the fear of that consequence wouldn’t exist.

Okay, second amendment. Right to bear. In what way does the government have to ensure that there is a supply of weapons for you to bear? You have the right to hold them. Getting them is your problem. Right to council/Right to doctor: its still compelling services, one for medical, the other for legal. The reason for such compelling is ultimately irrelevant, we have agreed that doing so in some instances its “just”.

Unless of course you agreed with the cheers during that whole “let him die” debate debacle.

The government doesn’t have to ensure that there are arms for one to bear, only that it recognizes that a right does exist and won’t be infringed upon.

The context is what is important. The government is responsible for the fact that you would need a lawyer in the first place. They are not responsible for your health or lack thereof.

As for the argument about whether we should cover someone that contracts a catastrophic illness, if he didn’t have health insurance, the question that was asked was done under a false premise. The question is not about whether the hypothetical 30-year old man would receive care, it is about who will pay for it. If we assume he would not die because he had coverage, it is automatic that he would not die if he didn’t have coverage. The reason is that the real debate has never been about providing health care, it has been about how the costs get applied. Blitzer’s question and the audience’s reaction to that question were both incorrect. The real question is should we, as taxpayers, pay for this man’s choices when they don’t work out in his favor? I say we should not. His life is not hanging in the balance.

And to cut off a potential contention you might have, this hypothetical man would have other avenues to explore, such as bankruptcy if he couldn’t afford his medical bills and contrary to popular belief, most bankruptcies are not due to medial bills. That Harvard based study that said 2/3 of bankruptcies are related to medical bills is only correct if you accept that it is just a relation, but not the reason why the person filed in the first place. Only about 17% of bankruptcies are actually due to medical bills and less than half of 1% of Americans file bankruptcy in the first place. Involving the federal government and, by extension, the tax payers, to the tune of what appears to be, at minimum $2 Trillion for less than .085% of the population’s issues with medical debt was not the right call. But, then again, in my opinion, it was never about covering the uninsured.

Just so. The Bill of Rights is foremost a restraint on government’s tendency to deprive individuals of liberty. It is, in a lesser sense, an empowerment of individuals.

Another useful way to look at this, particularly where Obamacare is involved is that my exercise of a right does not require anyone else to give of themselves that my exercise of that right is possible. With Obamacare, the so-called right to medical care or insurance absolutely requires that others give.

From 1980 through 2010, twenty-five thousand children, eleven and younger, were murdered.

Only four thousand of these murdered children were killed with guns.

The vast majority of murdered children were beaten, bludgeoned, burned, drowned or stabbed to DEATH.

Young children are the only murder demographic that the police routinely solve. The vast majority of murdered children are killed by putative parents. More detailed criminological and sociological studies reveal that children are safest in traditional families of heterosexual married couples, both of whom are the biological parents of their children. The riskiest environments are cohabitating couples with high paternal uncertainty, single mothers, and single mothers’ with boyfriends.

I would agree, but with a minor tweak. The “gun-free zone” is from the same line of thinking as is the “assault weapons ban”. The fact that people can use “gun-free zone” as a pejorative, should tell you something.

I’m afraid your analogy doesn’t quite work. Gun free zones actually exist and cause real harm. “Assault weapons” have never existed. They are entirely a construct for the purposes of depriving Americans of their unalienable rights, and thus, that construct, not firearms that don’t exist, have caused and will cause harm.

They are both feeble government (or in some cases, private) constructs, Mike. You are saying a “Gun Free Zone” is real via that concoction but an “assault weapon” isn’t. A thing that shouldn’t have existed, but strangely does by government fiat.

And no, a “Gun Free Zone” doesn’t cause real harm, as I have been advised multiple times on this board, its the criminals that cause the crime, not the setting, lack of guns, presence of guns, or in what quantity. Those who are intent on breaking the law will break the law. That is a sentiment routinely echoed around here.

Of course gun free zones exist, in legislation and in fact. They are actual, specifically designated places. However, I can write a law demanding that all cows henceforth be called “assault bovines” but assault bovines have never existed and never will exist regardless of what I call them in law or common discourse.

Criminals are surely responsible for their crimes, but in their choice of a location for mass murder, gun free zones, school or otherwise, obviously figure prominently in their decision making process. Foolish educators and legislators have established such zones, but their existence is the deciding factor in the minds of killers who do not stop to think about those who established them, but only the fact of their existence. Hence, in a very real sense, their existence causes, or at the very least, contributes to, harm.

Of course gun free zones exist, in legislation and in fact. They are actual, specifically designated places. However, I can write a law demanding that all cows henceforth be called “assault bovines” but assault bovines have never existed and never will exist regardless of what I call them in law or common discourse.

You don’t see the glaring disconnect in that? By legislative action, which could have never existed, exists, but the same is not true of the other. You are choosing to allow the existence of one, but not another when it is by the exact same creation! This is why I say its the conservative variants.

Assault weapons? Psh, never existed, never will exist (yet we have laws on the books about what they are, and appropriate rules governing them).

Gun Free Zonez! Oh em Gee! it facilitates the murder of innocents (much in the way a non-existant assault weapon can), but even though they should have never been around, and the exact same legislation that made those non-existant assault weapons through similar circumstances, the concept of the “Gun Free Zone” we choose to accept those as non-fiction!